Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading and for that I apologise. On this side of the Committee, we support the direction of travel of this Bill. We agree and endorse the principle that all those before the criminal courts should be treated equally and without special treatment. We have heard, however, compelling arguments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and other speakers about the difficulties with the drafting of this Bill and the way it is framed.

What I will say about the amendments is on the basis that, while we support the purpose of the Bill and in particular stand by our amendments in the third group—we believe they will bring to Parliament its proper role when it comes to guidelines—we see that there are issues with the terms to which these amendments are directed. Having said that, I can deal quite quickly with the amendments, without any disrespect to those who have spoken in support of them.

We believe that Amendment 1, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would detract from the Bill. We refer to our amendments in the third group and say that what is contained there would enable Parliament to address the points the noble Baroness made in practice. Similar arguments apply to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We do not favour this amendment and believe it goes too far in reversing the purpose of the Bill. We listened with great respect, as I have already said, to the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, which we think have great force. We can see that there could be unforeseen and unintended—perhaps they are foreseen, but they are certainly unintended—adverse consequences. With this and the other amendments, we await with interest what the Minister has to say in reply.

We would make similar observations in respect of Amendment 4, from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and Amendment 5, which we believe, to the extent that it adds to the Bill, detracts from its message and is a move in the wrong direction. On Amendment 6, again from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, we advance the same reasons as we have done in respect of the other amendments, and his Amendment 4.

On Amendments 11 and 12, we have nothing to add to what I have said before, but we believe that the Government must address the arguments advanced to ensure that the Bill is clearly drawn and does not have unintended adverse consequences that simply make the situation worse. We invite the Government to look carefully at this and, indeed, the aims of Amendments 12 and 13, although we believe that the Bill is right to focus in the direction that it does.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester also raised important specific points in relation to specific matters. Again, we will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but we see merit in the view expressed by the Constitution Committee, not in respect to those amendments in particular but, of course, in relation to other amendments. That is all that I propose to say at this stage in respect of this group.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for the careful consideration that they have clearly given the Bill, and I hope that I can reassure them on many, if not all, the points made. I also appreciate their kindness to me in their wise assumption that I am in the presence of some of the world’s experts on this subject, and I am not one of them—but I hope that I address all the points that noble Lords have raised.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that I am very grateful to her for the work that she does in supporting Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and I am happy to continue to engage with her on that subject. I have already had a meeting with the group as well.

In bringing forward the Bill, the Government are seeking to ensure that the sentencing guidelines do not lead to differential treatment before the law. To do that, the Bill prevents relevant guidelines about pre-sentence reports from referring to offenders’ different personal characteristics. A non-exhaustive list of illustrative examples of personal characteristics is included in the Bill, including race, religion or belief or cultural background. This list was developed with reference to the content of the Sentencing Council’s revised imposition guideline.

Before I set out the Government’s position, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for his contribution to this debate, which I will ask the team to consider fully ahead of Report.

Amendments 1, 11 and 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would replace reference to “personal characteristics” in Clause 1 with reference to “protected characteristics” in the Equality Act 2010. We have considered the proposed change to the wording carefully and, while we understand the logic behind referring to the set of protected characteristics provided for in the Equality Act, I am not persuaded that this would meet the Government’s policy objective.

The revised imposition guideline refers to members of a “cultural minority” within its list of cohorts for which a pre-sentence report would “normally be considered necessary”. As cultural background is not a protected characteristic provided for in the Equality Act, if the Bill was to be amended in the way proposed, the council would be free to provide within its guidelines that cultural minorities received preferential access to pre-sentence reports, in turn risking differential treatment before the law. The use of the broader term “personal characteristics” in the Bill ensures that our policy intent is met and that all the issues raised by the imposition guideline are appropriately addressed. I am happy to carry on the conversation with my noble friend and look forward to our meeting later this week. I therefore urge her not to press her amendment.

Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove the Bill’s current blanket restriction on sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports from referring to offender’s different personal characteristics. Instead, the amendment would require sentencing guidelines to include references to personal characteristics when they are also considered to be related to an offender’s personal circumstances. I am mindful that there has already been extensive debate in this House and in the other place about the Government’s use of the term “personal characteristics”, but I hope that it may nevertheless be helpful if I briefly summarise the Government’s approach.

The Government acknowledge that the concept of “personal characteristics” is a broad and flexible one that is not intended to have an exhaustive definition. However, to put it simply, personal characteristics refer to who or what someone is. They are things that one cannot, or should not, be expected to change; the Bill sets out some illustrative examples such as race, religion or belief, and cultural background. On the other hand, personal circumstances are more temporary and contingent. They are more about what someone is doing, what they have done or what has been done to them.

The Government completely accept that the line between characteristics and circumstances may not always be clear and that some attributes, such as pregnancy, could reasonably be described as both a characteristic and a circumstance. Ultimately, however, I must stress that the Government’s objective in bringing the Bill forward is to ensure equality before the law by preventing the Sentencing Council making guidelines that risk differential access to pre-sentence reports. The Government remain of the view that the reference to “personal characteristics” in the Bill is the most robust way of meeting this objective; I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Amendments 4 and 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would loosen the Bill’s restriction on sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports referring to offenders’ differential personal characteristics. It would do this by allowing sentencing guidelines to include such references where the Sentencing Council considers that this would prevent inequalities in sentencing outcomes. Although the amendments are well intentioned—I fully agree with the noble Lord on the importance of doing what we, as parliamentarians, can to tackle inequalities in outcomes across the justice system—we are not persuaded that these amendments are appropriate, for two key reasons.

First, they risk undermining the Bill’s fundamental objective of ensuring equality before the law by ensuring that sentencing guidelines do not include any provision that risks differential access to pre-sentence reports. Secondly, the Government remain of the firm view that it is for Ministers and Parliament, rather than the Sentencing Council, to consider how best to tackle disproportionate outcomes across the criminal justice system; it is not something that we should seek to address using differential treatment before the law during sentencing.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his speech highlighting the issues around racial bias and disproportionality in the justice system. We recognise the issues that he spoke about, but, as I have said, we believe that these are matters for policy, not the Sentencing Council, to address.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, work is continuing at pace on the review commissioned by the Lord Chancellor of the data held by the Ministry of Justice on disparities in the criminal justice system. This will be key in helping decide what we must do to address disparities; the House will be updated in due course. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that this is an issue the Government take incredibly seriously and are determined to address, and that he will agree not to press his amendments.

I acknowledge the wider comments from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the need for legislation, including whether we could postpone this legislation until after David Gauke has published his review. I remind the Committee of the timelines. The guidelines were due to come into effect on 1 April. We sought to address this issue via constructive conversation with the Sentencing Council. As the Sentencing Council did not agree to change the guidelines, we introduced legislation to address the specific concerns that we had around equality before the law. That is why we had to act in the way we have: with primary legislation.

Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would provide a list of non-exhaustive examples of instances where sentencing guidelines could recommend that sentencers consider requesting pre-sentence reports. Although we have carefully considered the case for adding these criteria to the Bill, we are not persuaded that this is necessary, for two key reasons.

First, I re-emphasise that nothing in the Bill restricts sentencing guidelines from advising, in general terms, that a pre-sentence report should be sought where a further assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. Sentencers will therefore retain discretion to decide whether a pre-sentence report should be ordered, considering the specifics of the case before them.

Secondly, I am mindful that the revised imposition guideline already includes relevant provision that meets the spirit of this amendment, and it will be unaffected by the Bill. I agree with the Lord Chancellor’s remarks in the other place that the council “got things right” in the paragraph of the revised guideline that states:

“PSRs are necessary in all cases that would benefit from an assessment of one or more of the following: the offender’s dangerousness and risk of harm, the nature and causes of the offender’s behaviour, the offender’s personal circumstances and any factors that may be helpful to the court in considering the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements”.


I agree that PSRs should be used more widely. My work in supporting the Probation Service needs to go hand in hand with this ambition. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Can the Minister clarify something he has not covered? It is how we deal with things that perhaps the Government regard as personal characteristics but that are not listed in the Bill, although they could fall within the non-exhaustive character of that provision in the Bill. Is it the Government’s view that the Sentencing Council has some way of knowing what such characteristics are? Various examples have been mentioned, such as autism or having been brought up in local authority care, which I mentioned. Would the council be acting illegally if it added further personal characteristics to those it was issuing guidance about when the Government did not agree with it?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. So I get the answer technically correct, I will write to him and other Members here.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I hope it is not inappropriate to speak; I have not tabled any amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested a pause, since we are expecting the Gauke review imminently. The Sentencing Council has not so far commenced its guidelines, pending this Bill, but might it agree to continue that non-commencement until we know what the Government will do in response to the Gauke review, so that this Bill does not need to be progressed until we know exactly what the Gauke review legislation will look like? It may well overlap and possibly conflict with what is in this Bill. I just wondered whether the Sentencing Council could be persuaded to postpone its non-commencement, pausing this Bill until we know the Gauke outcome.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council was very helpful in pausing its decisions. The noble Lord is right: there are a lot of moving parts at the moment, and we are waiting with bated breath for news of publication dates. But I am aware that we also want to pursue and get on with the fact that we do not want people to be treated unequally in front of a court.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

The Lammy report made it clear that there is inequality for certain groups because of their particular characteristics. My noble friend Lady Bakewell referred to the Gypsies. I declare an interest as a Welsh Gypsy, and I thank her for her support. What research is there to show that the obtaining of a PSR causes preferential treatment? What research is there to show that a judge will give a more lenient sentence if he has a PSR before him? Is there any and, if not, why not, before a Bill like this is brought forward? Surely the noble Lord will agree with what I said before: the more a sentencer knows about a person, the better it is and the better the sentence, both for the individual and for the community.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We are doing a large amount of work on collecting the data to understand the issue more widely, but I will write to the noble Lord with the exact information.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

There is no research, and this Bill has been brought forward on a premise that, from my experience, is wrong. It is that the provision of a pre-sentence report means that the judge will go easier upon the defendant. I think that is wrong and, without research, I do not see how you can bring this Bill forward.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

I appreciate that the Minister is in an interminable situation, but he did not actually respond to my key point, which is that there is an existing protection including the current mitigating factor for pregnancy. I drew attention to what was published in April last year, which already directs sentencers to obtain a PSR before sentencing and to adjourn sentencing until one is available, but this Bill is now making that unlawful. That is my key point.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Again, I apologise for not being too repetitive, but I am very keen on making sure that I am accurate in everything that I say. I will write to the right reverend Prelate.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who made their very forensic and clear points about the Bill and the manifold problems with it. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who replied with about as much kindness, courtesy and elegance as it is possible to do in these very tricky circumstances. I will not be pressing my amendments today, and I am glad that he and his advisers will reflect a little more before Report, which I think they would be wise to do.

I will just leave my noble friend with one thought about the points that I made. He has spoken often about preferential treatment, and I remind him of what I said about the high steps to my restaurant or hotel. If I add a ramp, a hoist or a lift for the person in the wheelchair to gain access to a service that they would not otherwise get access to, is that preferential treatment or a genuine, progressive, liberal and even one-nation Conservative attempt to level things out a little? I know what I think, and I suspect what some other Members of this Committee might think as well, but with that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will first deal with the two amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We believe that Amendment 2 is unnecessary; probation officers should be left to get on with their jobs. The Bill does not prevent them addressing matters likely to reduce offending and we should have some confidence that they will share this view when it is necessary and appropriate. Why would they wish not to go down that route? That, after all, is what their job is about: preventing reoffending.

We do not believe that Amendment 8 is necessary, but we are sympathetic to where it goes. Again, this is on the basis that our amendments in group 3, which will bring the guidelines before Parliament, are accepted and acted on, so that Parliament gets to look at what is actually happening in the guidelines themselves.

Again, we are sympathetic to the aims of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but, although reports are necessary in appropriate cases, they are not necessary in every case. It is the probation officer who is best placed to alert the court in cases where a report is not proposed. A probation officer will be in court and can speak to defendants before sentencing in court.

In my experience, having sat in the court myself as a recorder for many years—and even, many years before that, having appeared in Crown Courts on quite a number of occasions—a probation officer is best placed to alert the court to the benefit of obtaining a report, or saying that they actually do not need one in a given case. However, that can be left to Parliament when it looks at the guidelines, if it gets the chance to do so.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about probation and reducing reoffending—topics that are very important. I would like to use this opportunity to shine a light on the important work that probation practitioners do to support the sentencing process. I hope I can reassure noble Lords about the processes that are already in place.

I will speak first to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This would require the Sentencing Council to include references to the factors most likely to reduce reoffending in its sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports. While I cannot support this amendment, as it would remove the Bill’s prohibition on sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports being framed with reference to offenders’ personal characteristics, I agree that the role of probation in supporting reducing reoffending is an important one.

The purpose of a pre-sentence report is defined by section 31 of the Sentencing Code as being a report which

“is made or submitted by an appropriate officer with a view to assisting the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offender”.

A completed pre-sentence report will therefore provide sentencers with an effective assessment of risk, alongside targeted assessments of individuals’ needs, by confidently articulating suitable proposals that balance the needs of public protection, punishment and the rehabilitative aspects of sentencing.

Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, the probation practitioner writing the pre-sentence report will obtain information from both the defendant and external sources in respect of mental health, drug and alcohol needs and services, accommodation, finances and youth justice contact, as well as consideration of wider circumstances that could be indicative of additional vulnerability or complexity for the defendant.

A pre-sentence report will always include an assessment of the risk the defendant poses and to whom, including the risk of serious harm and likelihood of reoffending analysis. In making the sentencing recommendation, the pre-sentence report’s author must also consider the purposes of sentencing under the Sentencing Code, including the reduction of crime, and reform and rehabilitation.

The Probation Service has always had to balance public protection with rehabilitation, and striking the right balance is a long-standing part of the culture of the service, which is reinforced by the messages and expectations set not just by senior operational leaders but by me and other Ministers. I hope I can therefore reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that rehabilitative principles have always been, and will continue to be, at the heart of the pre-sentence advice provided to courts, and that she will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, proposes imposing a requirement on sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports to promote a greater use of such reports as part of sentencing. I share the noble Lord’s desire to see greater use of pre-sentence reports. As I have set out, a good PSR assesses the offender’s behaviour and the risks they pose, and recommends sentencing options tailored to those risks and needs. We know that the number of pre-sentence reports has declined, with a 44% reduction over the last decade.

There have been several reasons for this, but it may well be that judicial perceptions of probation’s capacity to deliver PSRs may influence that decision. Judicial confidence in probation is a key priority for me and for the Lord Chancellor, and I hope I can reassure noble Lords about the steps we are taking to maximise probation’s ability not just to deliver PSRs but to deliver them in a timely way and to a high quality.

First, we are continuing to invest in increasing staffing levels in probation. Last year, we recruited 1,000 new trainee probation officers, and this year we have raised that target to 1,300. That continued investment in staff is helping us fill vacancies, including in probation court teams, where last year we increased our target staffing levels.

Secondly, we are taking steps to increase the capacity of probation staff providing advice to courts. We are beginning to roll out a new digital service, prepare a case for sentence, that links to HMCTS systems and which means that listing information about upcoming cases comes straight to probation staff, rather than having to be looked up and rekeyed into the new system. This in turn will help probation court teams do the right preparation in advance, so they can identify cases in which a court is likely to need further information and have that ready on the day if the court requests a report.

We are also improving access to video-link facilities to promote greater use of remote interviewing, so that, where an offender is remanded in custody and the court adjourns for a pre-sentence report to be written, probation staff can easily carry out an interview to inform the report. Through measures such as these, we can better focus probation staff’s precious time on providing the court with the right information, rather than on chasing up data from partner agencies or having to react to court requests at short notice.

Thirdly, we are trying to maximise the different opportunities for courts to request pre-sentence reports. For example, the PSR before plea scheme allows for a pre-sentence report to be written early on in certain cases where there is an anticipated guilty plea, and it is likely that the defendant will be sentenced in the magistrates’ court.

I hope I have reassured the noble Lord about the Government’s commitment to increasing probation’s ability to provide the best possible advice to courts, and that he will be happy as a result not to press his amendment.

Amendment 8 is intended to prevent sentencing guidelines restricting the contents of a pre-sentence report or interfering with a court order. I take this opportunity to briefly reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that nothing in the Bill as currently drafted, nor sentencing guidelines themselves, will do this. Following the Bill’s passage, sentencers will retain their current discretion to decide whether to order a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases. All the Bill does is ensure that the content of sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports does not provide for differential access to pre-sentence reports for certain groups over others.

The Bill also does not impact the types of sentencing options available to the court. Sentencers will retain their discretion to impose the sentence that they consider most appropriate, based on the specifics of the individual case before them and in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured and that she will not press her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, that was the response I expected, and I thank the Minister for it. On the response from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, I shall take the sympathy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments raises some interesting and quite difficult points. Amendments 9, 10 and 17 were introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and also proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. On first reading, they appear to set out, albeit in a more elegant form—as one would expect, I suppose I should say—the effect of an amendment introduced in the other place by the Conservative shadow Secretary of State Robert Jenrick. Mr Jenrick’s amendment sought to give the Secretary of State—that, is the Executive—a complete veto over the guidelines proposed by the Sentencing Council. His language—I abbreviate it slightly—was that the council must

“obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing sentencing guidelines as definitive guidelines”.

That is what appeared in the amendment paper for the House of Commons, to which Mr Jenrick spoke.

That ran entirely across and counter to what we say is the proper constitutional position. The starting point is that the Sentencing Council is an independent body created by statute, with the job of advising judges on sentencing and the functions that I outlined in the debate on group 1. The judges are and must remain independent, and the judicial function is an independent function that must be, and always has been, independent of the Executive and Parliament. That is not to say that there should or should not be parliamentary oversight. Parliament sets the rules; it sets the maxima for sentences, it sometimes sets the minima for sentences, and it sets the political context. But the way in which the relationship between the judiciary, the Sentencing Council and Parliament functions has been explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and his explanation demonstrates the subtle interrelationship between Parliament and the judiciary in this process. It is carefully drawn, and it is very important that that careful distinction is maintained.

The language in Amendment 9 is rather different from the language in the amendment of Robert Jenrick in the other place. But it is strange and it has a strangeness built into it that my noble friend Lord Beith picked out, because Amendment 9 would provide that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports “must be submitted” to the Secretary of State by the Sentencing Council, and the Secretary of State

“must give effect to those guidelines by regulations”.

The point that my noble friend Lord Beith made was that it is not a matter for the Secretary of State to give effect to any guidelines by regulations, or indeed to do anything else by regulations. It is we in Parliament who make regulations. Certainly, they must be laid by the Secretary of State, but then Parliament has the decision-making power. Indeed, in the further amendments laid by the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, this is subject to the affirmative resolution. As it stands, I do not understand how the Secretary of State can be required by statute to give effect to those guidelines by regulations when it is for Parliament to accept or deny approval to such regulations.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the overall burden of the first part of Amendment 9—when it says

“must be submitted to the Secretary of State”,

followed by the implication that the Secretary of State has no option but to give effect to those guidelines—gives to the Secretary of State a power that he does not have and denies any function in the approval or the denial of the guidelines to the Sentencing Council, beyond simply proposing them to the Secretary of State.

So it is our position that Amendment 9 is in fact unconstitutional and does not work. It is for the noble Lords who have proposed it to consider how they want to proceed, but I would suggest for now that they withdraw it and come back on Report with something that at least makes constitutional sense before they go any further with this.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Amendments 9, 10 and 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would require the Sentencing Council to submit sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports to the Secretary of State, who would then be responsible for placing these guidelines before Parliament for approval.

As noble Lords will be well aware, the Lord Chancellor has been clear that this situation has highlighted that there is potentially a democratic deficit here. The Government are therefore currently reviewing the role of the Sentencing Council and its powers for developing sentencing guidelines. In doing so, we are fully mindful of the recent developments on the imposition guideline, which have brought us to debating today’s Bill.

I acknowledge and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, for his comments. In conducting the review, the Government are particularly mindful of the special role that the council plays in bridging Parliament and the judiciary on sentencing policy and practice. There are of course significant policy and constitutional matters to carefully consider, alongside considering what recommendations arise from the wider independent sentencing review.

While I acknowledge the noble Lord’s rationale for tabling these amendments, I am not convinced that it would be proper to legislate on this in a piecemeal way, recognising that the amendments capture only sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. I am also not convinced that using this fast-track legislation is the best way of going about this. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, but I hope I can offer some reassurance that the Government are keeping all options on the table. Once the review of the council is complete, the Lord Chancellor and I are clear that we are willing to further legislate on this in a more comprehensive way if necessary.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. The concerns raised today underline the vital necessity of ensuring that our justice system remains fair, impartial and subject to proper democratic accountability.

The three amendments we have just been considering seek to address what we see as a flaw in the current system: the lack of meaningful parliamentary scrutiny over sentencing guidelines that have profound implications for equality before the law. The draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council risked entrenching a two-tier justice system. They would have treated defendants differently based on identity rather than the merits of their case; that was unacceptable. Without these amendments, it could happen again.

I am grateful for the excursus given on the consultation process in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, which was interesting and helpful. However, government must be looking forward to how we manage this process in the future, so that Parliament, if appropriate—and we believe necessary—has the last word on the sentencing guidelines. They are in part for the judges, when they have to give practical effect to what is set out in them, but the fact that the council is an independent body and consults quite widely before the guidelines are promulgated should not mean that Parliament cannot have a look at them and then step in if it believes it appropriate. That is not to tread on the constitutional independence of the courts, because it will be before any sentences are pronounced under the guidelines. It will be just a step in the process, and they will then go to the courts for implementation.

We invite the Government to look at the approach we have advanced, even if the drafting may be imperfect as it stands. The principle at stake is simple: sentencing policy is too important to be left entirely to unelected bodies. Parliament must have the final say on matters that affect the foundational principle of equality under the law. These amendments have the aim of ensuring that, at the very least, guidelines on pre-sentence reports could not come into force without the explicit approval of both Houses. That is not an unreasonable burden; it is a basic safeguard of democratic accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can be brief. On the noble Lord’s first Amendment, Amendment 15, we would not for our part want the Sentencing Council to go down the road of issuing guidance inconsistent with its duties under the Equality Act.

As for Amendment 18 and the review, we do not have a view on this matter. I note that with practically every Bill that comes before this House there is a call for a review at some point, whether it is one year, two years or five years down the road. The Sentencing Council must by now be well aware of public concerns and the concerns of legislators, and it would itself want to know how things are going. It is quite likely to call for a review if so minded. We are neutral on that topic.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seeks to ensure that any guidelines about pre-sentence reports issued by the Sentencing Council are fully compliant with the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

I am not persuaded that this amendment is necessary, given the Bill’s key aim is to protect the principle of equal treatment before the law. It does this by removing the effect of the changes the Sentencing Council introduced in its revised imposition guideline, which provides that a pre-sentence report will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, with reference to their personal characteristics, and prevents the council from reissuing guidance to the same effect.

Furthermore, nothing in the Bill impacts the Sentencing Council’s obligations to comply with the public sector equality duty in developing sentencing guidelines. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 18, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would require an independent review to be arranged by the Secretary of State into the changes made by Clause 1 of the Bill to sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. I am mindful that a very similar amendment was tabled during the Bill’s consideration in the other place, and I do not want to repeat in full the debate there, but I hope it may be helpful if I briefly summarise the Government’s position.

While I recognise it is of course important to carefully ponder the Bill’s effects, I stress that the direct changes it makes are limited in nature. All this is about is ensuring that offenders do not receive preferential treatment regarding pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. This gets to the heart of ensuring equality before the law, which is a principle which does not need to be reviewed.

To be clear, nothing in the Bill will prevent judges from requesting pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including in appropriate cases involving domestic abuse, young people or pregnant women.

While I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to withdraw this amendment, I hope that I can reassure him that there will be ample opportunity in this House to discuss matters with regard to the Sentencing Council in future, once the Lord Chancellor’s review into the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council is complete.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I am content to withdraw the amendment at this stage and will consider further developments before Report.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the Victims’ Commissioner has warned that freeing offenders after only a 28-day recall will place victims and the wider public at an unnecessary risk of harm. Indeed, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has said that the scheme is “simply unacceptable”. It amounts, in essence, to a transfer of a problem from prisons to the public. Does the Minister agree that he has got this proposed policy completely wrong and that the proper approach should be to address the matter of licence conditions, which are prescriptive?

If we address licence conditions sensibly, we will find that where violent offenders breach their licence conditions by reason of a further violent offence, they may be returned immediately to prison, but where a non-violent offender breaches a licence condition—for example, by not attending supervision, not going to a specified place of abode, or even by reason of a minor road traffic offence—there should simply be a points system, as there is for a driving licence. They would receive one, two and three warnings about a breach of their licence; they would get three points for one, three points for another, three points for a third; and if they persisted in breach of their licence conditions, then, like a driving licence, it would be revoked and they would return to prison. The vast majority of prisoners allowed out on licence are not violent offenders; the latter should return to complete their sentence. Does the Minister agree that the Government have gone off in the wrong direction with this proposal?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, our mission is to protect the public, support victims and reduce crime. The worst thing that could happen for victims is for us entirely to run out of space in our prisons. That is forecast to happen in November, if we do not act now. The change announced last week to recall will create approximately a further 1,400 prison places and give us the time to carry out sentencing reform which, alongside prison building, will bring an end to the prison capacity crisis.

The reasons for that are clear. We have had 11 Justice Secretaries in 14 years. The previous Government built a net 500 prison places; we have 2,400 open already. Probation is a fantastic service that is really struggling. We recruited 1,000 extra probation officers last year and 1,300 this year. However, that is not all; we also have a big problem with drugs in our prisons. However, I can assure the House that offenders who pose the most risk and are actively managed by multiple agencies will be excluded from this measure, as well as those who commit serious further offences. We will publish details of that SI shortly, when we bring the measure before the House.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, limiting recalls is welcome; but these are very short sentences. During the 28-day period, will there be any attempt at rehabilitation or to find out what went wrong and what can be done to help? Will there be any follow-up? The noble Lord, rightly, supports electronic tagging. Have arrangements been made for tagging these recalled prisoners on release if they are not already subject to tagging conditions?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is exactly right. When people have been in prison, it is our job to help them when they leave so that they do not come back. Unfortunately, at the moment, far too many people come back. Electronic tagging has an important role to play—and that role will increase. Tagging is not just for making sure that people can be at home on a curfew; it is so that we can track them where they are. There are also sobriety tags. So, yes, there will be a tool at our disposal when people are released after their recall.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, may I risk a thunderbolt by paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and—at the risk of a second thunderbolt—suggest that there is not such a big difference between what he mooted and government policy? There is a distinction between the regulatory misdemeanour of being late for a probation appointment and committing a violent crime. There is something in what he said, and in my noble friend the Minister’s response, about differentiating between a violent crime committed while on release and a minor regulatory misdemeanour that could be dealt with in the way proposed by the Government.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that there is sometimes a big distinction between the offences that people commit. It is important that those committing serious further offences and those who are managed on a MAPPA 2 or 3 are treated differently from those with lower offences. I am clear that everybody who commits an offence needs to be dealt with by the law; but they also need to have an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves so that they do not create further victims in the future.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, as has been said, this stopgap measure really shines a spotlight on the whole issue of recalls, which have grown exponentially in recent years. Some 75% are for non-compliance, which is hugely detrimental to the big aim of transformed lives, which holds both victim and offender together. First, will the Minister assure us that his Majesty’s Government will look at recall in the light of the independent sentencing review, which is soon to be published? Secondly, there will be those in the process whose recall is seemingly for minor breaches, whereas in fact there may be a danger of control and fear instilled in victims of domestic abuse. We need to bring complexity into our thinking, rather than one size fits all. Will the Minister give reassurance to victims of domestic abuse that that is being taken seriously in this policy?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate can be assured that I will take the matter of victims of domestic abuse very seriously. I am sure she will be pleased to know that we will not have to wait too long for the Gauke review to be published. Obviously, I cannot comment on what is going to be in that, but I am confident that David Gauke will recommend changes to ensure that we never run out of space again. The number of recalls is 13,000 and growing. Only six years ago, the number was half that, so clearly there is a problem. We need to address that, and we will.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, many of us applauded the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, as the Prisons Minister, because he has such commitment to this cause and we still applaud him for the work that he is doing. Is it not obvious from the questions in your Lordships’ House that there is scope for a debate on building new prisons, on recall and on what the right reverend Prelate just mentioned about the Gauke review? We have read today that he says that 11,000 foreign nationals in our prisons will be deported; many of us will have concerns about what will happen if some of them re-enter the United Kingdom prematurely. Will the noble Lord undertake to speak to his noble friend about the possibility of a proper debate about these and associated issues?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his generous words. It is the usual channels that will decide debates, but when it comes to prison building, we are sure that we just need to keep building more prisons. Not enough prison spaces have been built; we need to build 14,000 and to build them fast. On foreign national offenders, we have removed 15% more this year than last year. I have regular meetings with Home Office colleagues to make sure that we are doing it as productively and efficiently as possible.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, more than 1,500 current IPP prisoners have been found safe for release by the Parole Board, only to be recalled indefinitely. This is not justice. The humane policy is to see these people resentenced and given fixed-term sentences as soon as the Parole Board says that they no longer pose a threat to the public. Can the Minister therefore explain why IPP recall prisoners are specifically excluded from the proposals on the table?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is part of the IPP team, and we have a meeting later this week where we will be able to discuss things in detail with a number of noble Lords from across the House. One topic that is very dear to my heart is IPP prisoners. Whenever I go to a prison, I always seek out an IPP prisoner; I sit in their cell, and I ask them why they are there, what they are doing to get out and what we can do to support them to get out. But their risk is often far more complex. The reasons why they went to prison in the first place, while it may have been far too long ago, often mean that we need to manage them very safely in the community too. It is something of which I am well aware, and I look forward to further conversations with the noble Lord.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as a result of the right reverend Prelate’s question, can I ask the Minister to what extent probation officers are trained to understand the distinction between minor matters that may not need recall and those that do?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness asks a very good question because, in my view, probation officers do the heavy lifting in the justice system. For too long, they have had too much work in their case loads. Some of that is to do with training and some with introducing technology to ensure that they have more time face to face with offenders. I have an internal review on training going on at the moment, similar to that which I did on prisons before I came into the House, and I assure all noble Lords that, if we are going to fix the problem in our prisons, we need to support our probation staff to do the job that they signed up to do when they joined the service.

Protection of Prison Staff

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, with a prison population at 98.9% of capacity last month, a 19% increase in the number of assaults on prison officers in the last year and a shortage of prison officers, that is a bagful of problems for the Minister. Does he have an emergency plan for these problems, and what will he do to ensure that our prison officers are safe and that there is a sufficient number of them?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

Like all noble Lords, I was shocked to hear about the serious assaults against prison officers at HMP Belmarsh and HMP Frankland. It is a sorry state of affairs. We will not tolerate any violence against prison officers. Prisoners who are violent towards of staff will face the full consequences of their actions. The incident at HMP Belmarsh is subject to a police investigation; as such, we are unable to comment further at any level of detail at this stage. However, in the past few weeks, since the recent serious attack at Frankland, we have announced a number of steps to improve prison officer safety, including trialling tasers, suspending the use of self-cook areas for certain prisoners and reviewing whether protective body armour should be made available to front-line staff.

We also have a zero-tolerance approach towards extremist gang activity in prisons. Staff clamp down swiftly on any threatening behaviour. Our staff turn up to work to help people turn their lives around, not to get assaulted.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

Prison staff work with a wide range of prisoners, from those who are the most violent to the many who are in prison for repeated low-level offending—many of whom have mental health issues and drug addictions—yet the training for prison staff is woefully short: a matter of weeks. I think that people would be shocked to hear how short that is. What is being done to expand that training and development so that staff not only feel valued but are equipped to deal with such a wide range of situations?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I share the right reverend Prelate’s interest in prison officer training. When I did my review into their training, it was clear that the period in which they have to learn the detailed and complex skills to do the job is too short. I have launched a trial in London called the Enable programme, where we are giving far more time to training. I believe that we should have a 12-month training programme rather than one of a matter of weeks. We should also give officers the time to learn the more subtle skills of being an officer. It is clear to me that one of the best ways to tackle the problems in our prisons and Probation Service is to ask the people who do the job.

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, given that we all agree in this House that attacks on officers are reprehensible and cannot in any way be accepted, would it not be a regressive step to mass-provide further protective and defensive equipment for officers across the board other than the category A estate? As the Minister knows well, good relationships between prisoners and officers will not be enhanced if it is likely that defensive equipment will be used in situations where it is plainly unnecessary, and conversation can de-escalate tension?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that the best way to de-escalate a problem in a prison is by jail craft—understanding the complexities and knowing your prisoners. If we look at the tools available to prison officers, we see that the best one is their mouth, but we also need to look at what we can do to protect our staff, because they need protecting in some of our establishments where they are dealing with complex and dangerous prisoners.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, one of the main causes of violence in prisons is the ready availability of illegal drugs. The Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State, stated the other day that it was her intention to try to rid our prisons of drugs by the end of this Parliament. Is that a realistic pledge?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that drugs are a massive problem in our prisons. Some 49% of people arriving in prison tell us they are addicted to drugs, and then we put them in a prison with serious organised criminals who make a lot of money out of selling drugs to them, so clearly we have a problem. However, I am interested not just in tackling drugs getting into prisons—how we tackle drones and illegal contraband coming in—but in how people can leave prison not addicted, so that when they leave prison they do not go back.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

These attacks were made by dangerous individuals who had been imprisoned because of their violent radicalism, but there remains the problem of radicalisation within prisons once prisoners arrive on the estate. What assessment has the Minister made in his early months of the scale of this within the prison system and the current level of resilience in what the state and prison officers can do to protect prisoners from it?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Any gang member is a problem in our prisons. We need to make sure that we identify where they are and do all that we can to limit their activities. We know that the best way of dealing with these complex people is by trusting the staff and their expertise at dealing with them, and we need to we give them every tool at their disposal to make sure that these people are not dangerous to themselves, to other prisoners and, most importantly, to staff.

Police, Prison and Probation Officers

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woodley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the morale, recruitment and retention of police, prison and probation officers.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

I know that noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to the amazing work of police, prison and probation officers, and to the importance of our recognised trade unions in representing them. The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, which placed a huge burden on our staff. I am committed to making HMPPS a world-class organisation, and I know my Home Office colleagues are working hard to give police officers the support they need to tackle crime and keep the public safe.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that response. In a civilised society, our police, prisons and probation services must never be run on the cheap. Crumbling prisons and shortages of prison and probation staff are endemic. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it was a terrible mistake by the last Government not to protect these vital public services, which are so important to protecting the public, when they unleashed their short-sighted and counterproductive austerity agenda?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

It is clear that we inherited a mess from the previous Government, with a prison system on the verge of collapse and decimated neighbourhood policing numbers. This Government took decisive action to alleviate the immediate capacity pressures and are committed to making sure that this situation never happens again. That is why we published the first annual statement on prison capacity and a 10-year prison capacity strategy, and commissioned the Independent Sentencing Review. This Government are also taking steps to rebuild neighbourhood policing, which is why we have made £200 million available in 2025-26 to support the first steps of delivering 13,000 more neighbourhood policing personnel.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, last week the Minister promised a “seismic shift” to improve professional standards across the Prison and Probation Service. He described reports of bullying, discrimination and harassment as

“a wake-up call and an opportunity to change”,

and we agree. Retention rates are very bad: 10.4% of probation officers are leaving annually. For Probation Service officers, who include assistants and trainees, it is over 12%. They have too much to do, often with little experience; 7.8% of prison officers leave every year. Low morale is a major contributor but so are pay and conditions, given the challenges they face. What extra resources will the Government put into recruitment and retention in those services?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Last year we recruited 1,000 extra probation officers, and this year we are recruiting 1,300. It is clear that it is not just about recruiting staff and training them; it is about embracing technology to help them do their jobs better. Last week we announced that we would agree to all 12 recommendations of the Rademaker review, and we are very grateful to one of HMPPS’s non-execs, Jennifer Rademaker, for all the work she did on it. It is totally unacceptable that our staff have to work in conditions where they are bullied, belittled and sexually harassed, and as Minister I am determined to stamp it out. Retention rates are not where I would like them to be. I am working very hard to make sure that HMPPS is a world-class organisation. That means high rates of training, high rates of morale and high rates of success.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Ministry of Justice reported a 12.5% leaving rate among band 3 to 5 prison officers for the year ending December 2024. Considering that the number of new recruits decreased by 35.4% during the same period, will the Minister explain what practical steps the Government are taking to improve both recruitment and retention among prison officers?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The latest figures are that we have 97% of the number of staff we need in our prisons, but clearly we still have a bit to go. Also, a number of those staff are yet to be fully trained and in the right place. Before I was asked to come and do this role, I did a full review into the training of prison officers. I am fortunate that it is more likely to happen now I am in this role, because training is a big part of the reason why some of our staff leave too early. We want to make sure that people build their whole careers in the Prison Service, because the skills they learn—those soft skills about how they speak to prisoners and offenders—really make the difference in helping turn someone’s life around.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, the Police Service of Northern Ireland currently has an all-time low of 6,300 officers. The chief constable is seeking approximately £200 million additional funding to increase the headcount to 7,000 in 2028. While I acknowledge that responsibility for funding the PSNI is devolved, national security is clearly the responsibility of His Majesty’s Government. Given the specific threat from republican terrorists to police and prison officers in Northern Ireland, does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on UK Ministers to step forward to bridge this funding gap to help keep these brave men and women safe?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am pleased to say that we as a Government are putting an extra £1 billion into policing, which will go a long way to addressing the neighbourhood policing issues that we have discussed.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, last week I observed the intensive supervision court in Birmingham, where women serving community orders for low-level offences are closely monitored by judges. Probation staff play a pivotal role. It is clear that the work is high and intense. What steps are the Government taking to urgently ensure that problem-solving courts have the best chance of succeeding—and, indeed, other creative community proposals that we hope will come out of the Independent Sentencing Review?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I hope we will not have to wait too long for the Independent Sentencing Review; I may need to ask some noble and learned Lords about what the exact dates are. The best day I have had in this job—and I have had lots of really good days—was going to the intensive supervision court in Birmingham. It was incredibly uplifting seeing female offenders coming up from the cells in the morning looking very ill and then seeing how the lives of those who have been engaging with the intensive supervision court for six months have changed. But they knew that they had to engage with probation, housing and often drug and addiction work—and, if they did not, they went to prison.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Government and congratulate them on the re-establishment and re-emphasis of neighbourhood policing. The running down of neighbourhood policing was a terrible mistake by the last Government. Will my noble friend the Minister accept that neighbourhood policing is not just an essential element of effective policing but crucial to the confidence that the public have in the police service, because they can see police on the beat and in their own neighbourhood?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of British policing, and it is the right model for us. We lost 20,000 police officers under the last Government, but we expect up to an initial 3,000 neighbourhood officers in neighbourhood policing roles by the end of next year. Every community deserves visible, proactive and accessible neighbourhood policing, with officers tackling issues that matter to people.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, as I am sure the Minister will know, police services countrywide struggle to recruit members from the black and ethnic-minority communities, and that is mainly because of the very low level of morale among black serving officers. What work is the Minister specifically doing to support the morale of those police officers?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am pleased to know that we have a race action plan that we are working with police constables; it is really important that we recruit fantastic people and make sure that we represent the communities we serve.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, the Minister said that there was an extra £1 billion coming into policing this year. However, not one penny of that £1 billion will go to Northern Ireland because policing is a devolved matter. Given that the Northern Ireland policing budget is significantly eroded by paying out for dealing with legacy in Northern Ireland, when will the Government create ring-fenced funding to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland, which will then allow Northern Ireland’s police to serve the community in the way in which they wish—properly staffed and properly resourced?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I will pass that question on to the Northern Ireland Secretary responsible for legacy issues and write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are clearly taking all the issues across the criminal justice system very seriously, but does my noble friend agree that there is a slight risk that not everything will be dealt with entirely coherently? Does he agree with the many voices in this Chamber and beyond that what is really needed is a royal commission on the whole criminal justice system, as promised by the last Government but not delivered?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We are a Government of action and I am a Minister of action, and I am already getting going. For me, it is really important that we have had the Independent Sentencing Review, which I hope we will be talking about shortly, and the Leveson review is ongoing. Those are significant reviews, and we will implement those reforms quickly.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Timpson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Timpson]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords who have already contributed to debates in this House on this matter, which have provided me and the Government with valuable food for thought. I am also grateful to the noble Lords with whom I have spoken about this Bill, who have shared their wise counsel and wealth of experience regarding the matters on which it touches.

I know that all noble Lords will be looking forward to my noble friend Lady Nichols’ maiden speech. I welcome her to this place, and I know we will all benefit from her vast experience in public service.

I will start by recapping how we got here, as I believe that it is important to understand the Government’s intention behind the Bill. The Sentencing Council’s imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline helps judges, when sentencing an offender, to determine whether to impose a community order or a custodial sentence. In deciding which threshold has been met, judges are required by law to obtain a pre-sentence report, except in circumstances where the court considers such a report to be unnecessary. Pre-sentence reports are used to give the courts more context for the offending behaviour in a given case to aid judges and magistrates in making informed sentencing decisions. The current imposition guideline makes it clear that pre-sentence reports offer valuable assistance to the court when it decides whether to impose a community or custodial sentence.

Under the last Government, the Sentencing Council consulted on a revised imposition guideline. This guideline was due to come into effect on 1 April this year and includes additional guidance on when courts should request pre-sentence reports. It noted that pre-sentence reports will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, including those from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority. In effect, this could have led to offenders receiving differential treatment in terms of access to pre-sentence reports based on their faith or the colour of their skin. These changes were welcomed by the previous Administration.

By contrast, both the Lord Chancellor and I have been clear that that would be unacceptable—not least for the victims, who put their trust in the criminal justice system. Singling out one group over another undermines the idea that we all stand equal before the law, a principle that has been at the forefront of our justice system and our society for centuries. This is the position that the Lord Chancellor communicated in person and in writing to the Sentencing Council. The Lord Chancellor first used her existing power, meeting the Sentencing Council’s chair on 13 March to ask it to reconsider its approach. Unfortunately, the council declined to amend the guidelines significantly or re-consult on its approach. While the Sentencing Council remains of a different opinion from the Government, I am grateful to its chair, Lord Justice Davis, for the engagement he has had with the Lord Chancellor and for the cordial conversations that I know we will continue to have.

I am very thankful that, following its engagement, the Sentencing Council has paused implementation of the revised imposition guideline while Parliament has its say. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have shared their expertise in this area with me. It is clear that the intention behind the Sentencing Council’s changes to the guidelines was an honourable one: to address the inequalities in our justice system. The issue of disparities in the criminal justice system is a serious matter, and one which this Government are determined to address.

However, this is a question of policy, one which must be addressed by government, accountable to the public and Parliament, and via the ballot box. As noble Lords will be aware, this issue has prompted debate here, in the other place and publicly on the correct roles and responsibilities of the Sentencing Council, and the Lord Chancellor is carefully reviewing and considering all options. I am sure that that will be discussed more in your Lordships’ House in the months ahead.

However, I want to be clear that this is beyond the scope of the narrow Bill at hand today. The Sentencing Council, although only 15 years old, holds an important position within the justice system, and any changes to its function and powers must be considered carefully. I know that several noble and learned Lords have had roles on the Sentencing Council and its predecessor and will have valuable views to add as this is considered. It would not have been right to address this through this targeted and narrow legislation.

I am proud of our judiciary, and I know that they are the envy of the world: rightly respected for their independence, impartiality and fairness. I know that the Lord Chancellor takes her oath to defend the independence of the judiciary very seriously. I reassure noble Lords that nothing we are considering in terms of the future of the Sentencing Council will change the Government’s clear commitment to defend the rule of law.

I turn now to what the Bill does. Clause 1 amends Section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It provides that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports may not include provision framed by reference to offenders’ different personal characteristics, including race, religion, belief or cultural background. This would mean that any existing guidelines on pre-sentence reports which are framed by singling out personal characteristics would cease to have effect.

The Sentencing Council will therefore not be able to make such provision in future guidelines. The changes made by this clause therefore prevent the Sentencing Council making policy about when pre-sentence reports should be obtained. That would risk differential treatment before the law and would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

In bringing forward the Bill, the Government’s objective is to help ensure equality before the law, so that offenders are treated according to their individual circumstances and not by virtue of their membership of a particular group. We have therefore used the term “personal characteristics” in the Bill to ensure that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports cannot include provision framed by reference to any specific personal characteristic of an offender, and we have accompanied this by listing some characteristics in the Bill, including race, religion or belief, or cultural background.

However, this is a non-exhaustive list, intended to give context to the term. The Government intend that the Bill will also apply to a wider range of characteristics including sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy. We have also used the term “demographic cohort” in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, to help provide additional context to the meaning of “personal characteristics”.

I will now make clear what the Bill does not do. It does not interfere with the courts’ duties to obtain a pre-sentence report in appropriate cases—for example, those involving primary carers and victims of domestic abuse. The Bill does not interfere with the courts’ ability to request a pre-sentence report. The Sentencing Code is clear that courts must obtain pre-sentence reports unless they consider it to be unnecessary. The Bill does not affect this presumption. The independent judiciary will retain discretion to make decisions about where pre-sentence reports are necessary based on the facts of the case. The Bill does not stop the Sentencing Council advising, in general terms, that pre-sentence reports should be sought in cases where the court would benefit from an assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances.

Also, as detailed in the Explanatory Notes, the Bill does not change existing precedent where the courts have determined that pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable. Recently, in R v Thompson, the Court of Appeal emphasised their importance in sentencing pregnant women or women who have recently given birth. In R v Meanley, the court referenced the value of pre-sentence reports for young defendants. In R v Kurmekaj, the defendant had a traumatic upbringing and vulnerability, and was a victim of modern slavery. The court considered that these factors meant that a pre-sentence report should have been requested. Instead, the Bill narrowly focuses on the issue at hand.

I welcome the use of pre-sentence reports, which are a valuable tool for sentencers in appropriate cases. The number of pre-sentence reports declined by 44% between 2013 and 2023. The Probation Service is under a huge amount of pressure, which is indicative of wider capacity issues in the system. This Government have acted quickly to create capacity within the Probation Service to ensure that our hard-working probation officers have more time for vital work such as this. We have announced plans to recruit a further 1,000 probation officers in the coming year, on top of the 1,300 extra probation officers recruited in the last financial year. I am continuing to work with the Probation Service to ensure that it can deliver a high and consistent standard of service.

We are also working to better understand what drives disparities in the criminal justice system. The Sentencing Council has acknowledged that the causes of disparities in sentencing outcomes are “unclear”. Understanding the data is the key first step to deciding what we must do to address these disparities. The Lord Chancellor set out during the Bill’s Second Reading in the other place that she has commissioned a review of the data held by the Ministry of Justice on disparities in the justice system. On the timeline for the review, noble Lords can rest assured that we are working at pace on this and will update the House in due course. I assure your Lordships that this is an issue which the Government take incredibly seriously and are determined to address. However, this cannot be done at the expense of equality before the law.

In conclusion, by preventing the Sentencing Council making guidelines on pre-sentence reports with reference to personal characteristics, this Bill ensures that we all continue to stand equal before the law. I urge noble Lords to support the Bill and the principle that drives it—of equality before the law. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I start my closing speech by paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord Etherton. Being relatively new to this place, I never got to know him, but it is clear how much he was deeply respected and admired. He has been described as a kind person, which is something that I hope one day would be my epitaph.

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions over the course of today’s debate. The depth of knowledge and experience in this House has certainly been on full display. It has also been a pleasure to be in this place for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Nichols of Selby. I warmly welcome her to this place and look forward to working with her in the years to come, as she clearly has a lot to contribute.

I thank noble Lords who have raised perceptive questions over the course of today’s debate and those who have spoken to me privately. I hope they will feel that I have addressed their points in my closing remarks. If I do not cover them now, I will follow up in writing to address their points. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, words matter. I hope that my closing words matter and are helpful in answering noble Lords’ questions.

As I set out in my opening speech, the Sentencing Council’s revised imposition guideline risked differential treatment before the law. As we have discussed, this Bill is not about the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. It is not about restricting the use of pre-sentence reports. In fact, this Government are committed to increasing the use of pre-sentence reports. Rather, it is about the very specific issue of the Sentencing Council issuing guidelines on pre-sentence reports with reference to an offender’s personal characteristics, rather than all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, have asked why this Bill is necessary and whether it was possible to resolve the matter with the Sentencing Council without primary legislation. In response, I would explain that we first exhausted all other options prior to introducing this legislation. The imposition guideline was due to come into effect on 1 April this year. Ahead of this, the Lord Chancellor used her existing power to ask the Sentencing Council to reconsider. Unfortunately, the Sentencing Council declined to revise the draft guideline. It was right, at that point, to act quickly to introduce the legislation.

As a result, the Sentencing Council decided to put the guideline on pause while Parliament rightly has its say, and we are grateful to it for doing so. By acting quickly, we prevented a guideline coming into effect which risked differential treatment before the law. This legislation has been necessary to achieve that and to clarify this Government’s commitment to equality before the law.

Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beith, have questioned the scheduling of this Bill. I reassure noble Lords that the dates for Committee and Report have been agreed in the usual channels in the usual way.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lady Mattinson have spoken about the importance of trust and consistency in the justice system. As the speed with which we introduced the Bill demonstrates, this Government are definitive in their stance with regard to equality before the law. The issues that have been raised with regard to disproportionality in our justice system are the domain of government, politics and Parliament. This Bill serves to reassert our ability to determine this country’s policy on the issue of equality of treatment before the law.

As my noble friend Lady Mattinson set out, we must work to preserve trust in our excellent legal system. I thank her for sharing her considered views on this. It is essential to victims that they are able to trust our legal system and know that everyone will be treated equally before the law. Implementing a sentencing guideline that could lead to differential treatment before the law puts trust in the legal system at risk, which is why we acted quickly to address this.

To address the question from the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Wolfson, about what this Bill means for the future of the Sentencing Council, I reiterate that the Sentencing Council has done valuable work, bringing consistency to judicial decision-making. However, developments on the imposition guideline have clearly revealed a potential issue, where the council is dictating policy that is not this Government’s and that does not express the will of Parliament. The Lord Chancellor is therefore reviewing the powers and function of the Sentencing Council. It would not be appropriate to deal with that wider issue through fast-track legislation, given the significant policy and constitutional issues involved. It is right to take the time to consider more fundamental reform like this. The Lord Chancellor will be considering all options and I know that many in your Lordships’ House will have valuable experience to contribute.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other noble Lords asked how this Bill interacts with the review of sentencing being led by David Gauke and ably supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett. I reassure noble Lords that this Bill will not have any impact. This Bill is addressing the specific matter at hand regarding the Sentencing Council guidelines. The sentencing review is a wider review of sentencing, and we look forward to considering its recommendations in due course.

I turn now to the questions over the detail of the Bill, which were raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Hope, the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame, Lord Beith, Lord Bach and Lord Wolfson, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. What is clear from this debate is the Government’s objective to help ensure equality before the law. We are clear that an offender should be judged by a court on an individual basis, according to the particular facts and circumstances of their case. It is not for the Sentencing Council to set out in guidance that judgments should be made on the basis of personal characteristics such as race or ethnicity.

The Government have used the broad term “personal characteristics” to make it clear that any reference to preferential treatment for particular cohorts is unacceptable. The Bill states that personal characteristics include race, religion or belief, and cultural background, but these are examples and not a comprehensive list. “Personal characteristics” is intended to include a wide range of characteristics, such as sex, gender identity, physical disabilities and pregnancy status. This is broader than the concept of “protected characteristics” in the Equality Act, which is a closed list and not wide enough to address, for example, the reference in the guideline to being a member of a cultural minority.

After careful consideration, the Government have therefore concluded that the most appropriate and principled way to respond to the issues raised by the guideline is to use the broader concept of “personal characteristics” in the Bill. The term “demographic cohort” is used in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. However, the use of “demographic cohort” was not intended to, and I believe does not, narrow the definition of “personal characteristics”. A demographic cohort is a way of describing people who share certain personal characteristics. It is used in the Explanatory Notes to provide additional context to the Bill, but it would not be an appropriate alternative to the current drafting and would, in my view, raise further difficult questions of definition regarding what amounts to a “demographic cohort”. The term “personal characteristics” is used and understood in other contexts, and the Government consider it is the best formulation to address the issues raised by the guideline.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, raised concern over whether this Bill interferes with judicial independence. To be clear, this Bill does not in any way influence individual sentencing decisions. Individual sentencing decisions clearly remain a matter for the independent judiciary. However, as I have said previously, the issue of tackling disproportionate outcomes within the criminal justice system is a policy matter and should be addressed by Government Ministers. The narrow change introduced by the Bill targets aspects of the sentencing guidelines that relate to equality of inputs. We are therefore addressing a policy matter and are not encroaching on judicial independence.

It is regrettable that some of the recent debate has strayed into comments about individual judges and their decision-making. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will be reassured that this Government will always support judges to do their jobs independently. I know that the Lord Chancellor takes her duty to defend judicial independence very seriously. As a number of noble and noble and learned Lords have said today, we are very lucky to have a world-class and highly regarded judiciary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Nichols of Selby, have rightly raised concerns about probation capacity, which is something that I think about in my role on a daily basis. One knock-on effect of this is the consistency and quality of pre-sentence reports. This Government support the wider use and improvement of pre-sentence reports within our courts. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that they can be valuable in all cases and for all defendants, regardless of their membership of a certain cohort, and should be obtained unless a judge believes that they are unnecessary. We are committed to ensuring that pre-sentence reports are available when needed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what will happen to pre-sentence reports that are being prepared when the Bill comes into effect. I reassure her that there will be no impact on pre-sentence reports in the process of being prepared. This Bill is not about the ability of a court to request a pre-sentence report. The test remains that, under section 30 of the Sentencing Code, a PSR should be requested unless it is considered unnecessary. This is about council guidelines and the need to protect the principle of equal treatment before the law.

We have publicly outlined the steps we are taking to increase capacity in the Probation Service to enable it to undertake more valuable work such as this. Next year, we will bring 1,300 additional new trainee probation officers on board, but as noble Lords are well aware, and I have spoken to a number of noble Lords privately about this, it takes time to train and induct new staff to allow them to become the brilliant probation officers we so highly value. I have a lot to do to help our fantastic probation staff achieve what we know is possible in the service.

To support our probation staff, we are embracing technology, including AI. Work is ongoing that is improving the flow of information—so critical to an accurate assessment of an offender’s risk—and new tools are beginning to strip away a probation officer’s administrative burden. There is much more work still to do. However, given the challenges the Probation Service faces, new staff and better processes are not sufficient on their own. We need to think about how we use the Probation Service, which faces a case load of just over 250,000 offenders, more effectively.

The theme of the debate, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has been tackling disproportionality across the criminal justice system. We know that more must be done to address inequalities and we are committed to tackling racial disparities, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will be pleased to hear. As the Lord Chancellor set out in the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has questioned, she has commissioned a review into the data held by the Ministry of Justice on disparities, and we will carefully consider next steps. We are also taking action to increase diversity in our staff and working with the judiciary to make sure that our appointments are reflective of the society we serve. This has included supporting underrepresented groups to join the judiciary.

A particular concern was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about how the Bill may impact on women—in particular, pregnant women. As the chair of the Women’s Justice Board, I have paid particularly close attention to this matter and have also spoken with board members. To be clear, nothing in the Bill prevents judges requesting pre-sentence reports for pregnant women, nor will it affect Court of Appeal case law, which states that a pre-sentence report is desirable in the case of pregnant or postnatal women. Judges will therefore continue to be able to request pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including, for example, appropriate cases involving pregnant women, and we expect this to continue. We are committed to achieving equal outcomes for women.

In conclusion, this is a targeted and specific Bill which serves to protect the important principles of equality before the law. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I look forward to engaging with them as the Bill progresses.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, before the Minister moves the Second Reading, he told the House, in justifying why the term “personal characteristics” is used here, that it is used in a number of contexts. I do not expect him to answer in detail now, but will he write to the House to explain what those contexts are so that we have them in our minds as well?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I will very happily write. As noble Lords are aware, I am not an expert on the finer details of the law, so that would actually help me as well. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor has been clear about her concerns since the guidelines were published: that they risk differential treatment before the law. We asked the Sentencing Council to revise them and were disappointed by its refusal to do so. As a result, yesterday, we introduced legislation to address the very specific issue with this guideline. The Sentencing Council has put the guideline on pause while Parliament, rightly, has its say.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister please tell the House, first, how can the proposed Bill justifiably be regarded as emergency legislation when, plainly, a non-statutory resolution is available? Secondly, will he tell us whether consideration was given to referring the issues to the Gauke sentencing review—which will report shortly—and, if not, why not? Finally, will he tell the House whether the Government have consulted the Women’s Justice Board, which the Minister himself chairs? Have they realised that the proposed definition of “personal characteristics” in the Bill is a recipe for repeated legal challenges; for example, as to whether “pregnant” or “postnatal” are proscribed definitions? I thank Joshua Rozenberg for those examples.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

We believe that the guidelines represent a differential treatment before the law and that is why we oppose them. We asked the Sentencing Council to revise them and, as I said, it did not. The Lord Chancellor has introduced legislation to address this specific issue. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines were due to come into effect on 1 April, so it is right that we moved quickly on this and have introduced legislation to address the matter at hand.

I am grateful to the Sentencing Council for the constructive conversations it has had with the Lord Chancellor. It paused the in-force date of the guideline until the legislation, which was introduced yesterday, takes effect. The Independent Sentencing Review that David Gauke is chairing is a much wider review of sentencing that is due to report in the coming months. We look forward to considering its recommendations carefully when they come out.

On the Women’s Justice Board, which I proudly chair, I have spoken to several members about this and I am grateful to them for sharing their views. To be clear, judges will continue to be able to request pre-sentence reports in cases where they already would; for example, those involving pregnant women, young people or domestic abuse.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, in Scotland, the court is legally obligated to request a criminal justice social work report before imposing for the first time a custodial sentence on anyone, on an accused under the age of 21, and in many other circumstances, including specific sentences. The legal basis for such a report is set out in Section 203 of the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1995—legislation passed by this Parliament under a Conservative Government. In the 30 years since then, no one has ever alleged that Scotland has a two-tier justice system. Will my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Justice consider a similar revision of criminal justice law for the part of the UK for which they have responsibility?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. I am sure he is aware that I am not an expert on Scottish law, as I know some other noble and noble and learned Lords are. However, our position is that the Sentencing Council’s guideline could lead to differential treatment before the law. That is why we have acted as we have. Any judge can still ask for a pre-sentencing report in any case where they consider it necessary.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, we are all committed to equal treatment, but there is a mass of evidence, including the Lammy review, that ethnic minority defendants are far more likely to be sent to prison than their white counterparts. So we already have a two-tier justice system. Thorough pre-sentence reports are the only robust way to address that, and that is what the proposed guideline is about. Instead of emergency legislation, can the Government not, even now, work with the Sentencing Council to reach a solution that addresses damaging rationing of pre-sentencing reports and ensures that the personal circumstances of defendants in vulnerable cohorts are fully considered?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Nothing in the Bill prevents judges requesting a pre-sentence report for pregnant women—it is normal practice for judges to request pre-sentence reports in cases involving pregnant women—nor does the Bill affect Court of Appeal case law, which states that a pre-sentence report is desirable in those cases. I believe that pre-sentence reports are very important, but they have declined in number considerably over the last 10 years. From 2013 to 2023, they declined by 44%. That is why we are putting extra resources into probation, recruiting more probation officers so that they have the time to produce high-quality pre-sentence reports.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister—perhaps the Minister of State for pouring oil on troubled waters—referred to the dialogue between his department and the Sentencing Council. But, as he knows, after the report became public on 5 March, that dialogue was far from helpful. The Sentencing Council pushed back hard on the suggestion from the Secretary of State for Justice that it had created a two-tier sentencing system. Therein lay the fundamental problem, which is that when the previous Labour Government created the Sentencing Council, they created a body that was not answerable to the judges or the Government. Does the Minister consider that that model is now compromised, as evidenced by recent events? Will his department address the issue of how sentencing guidance should be provided in future?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is right to say that the Sentencing Council plays an important role in ensuring transparency and consistency in sentencing guidelines but I will not engage in the personal issues that he refers to. The Lord Chancellor is committed to reviewing the role of the Sentencing Council but it will take time to consider this carefully, so it is not appropriate for the Bill. For me, what is important is that we are proud of our judiciary and its independence, and the fact that, quite rightly, it is respected the world over.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, this disagreement is deeply disappointing. It does not come close to a constitutional crisis, because the Sentencing Council and the Lord Chancellor are seeking to achieve the same thing. Is the Minister aware that elsewhere in the sentencing guidelines there is wording that reminds judges that there is, in fact, evidence that more black, Asian and other ethnicity offenders receive an immediate custodial sentence than white offenders? Does he agree that if the Sentencing Council would back down and change the wording of the offending part, there would be no need for this legislation?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. There is no doubt that more must be done to address inequality in the justice system, and the Lord Chancellor has commissioned a full review of the sentencing disparity and its causes. We are clear, though, that this is a matter of policy, which is why we are legislating on this. I am glad that the Sentencing Council has decided to delay the guidelines until this legislation has passed.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree, given the substantial achievements of the Sentencing Council, particularly in achieving consistency, that now is the time for quiet reflection in recognising that achievement?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his wise words, and for recognising that we could all do with a quiet period. We are all looking forward to the Recess in 48 hours’ time.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in the Free Speech Union and apologise for accidentally omitting to do so at Oral Questions yesterday. It was my first ever Oral Question, and I hope noble Lords will forgive the omission.

I want to ask the Minister for his assurance about another two-tier justice risk; namely, the work that the Government have embarked upon to come up with an official definition of Islamophobia that they then recognise and incorporate into guidance. Can he reassure the House that that definition will not be incorporated into any advice given by the College of Policing to the police in England and Wales, nor in any official advice produced by the CPS, nor in advice given to the Courts and Tribunals Service, and that once the definition has been adopted, it will mean that anti-Muslim hatred is not treated any differently by the police, courts or tribunals from anti-Sikh hatred, anti-Hindu hatred or, indeed, anti-Christian hatred?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his second question. As I have said previously, the Lord Chancellor is committed to doing a full review of policies to ensure that none of them contradicts the important principles of equality before the law.

Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

On 31 December 2024, 695 unreleased IPP prisoners were 10 years or more over tariff, representing 67% of this population. Data on the number of recalled IPP offenders who have served 10 years or more over their tariff is not centrally collated. On 30 September 2024, 2,320 IPP offenders on licence were 10 years or more over tariff, representing 80% of those in the community. On 1 November, 1,742 licences were terminated following the commencement of reforms in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his Answer; I know how hard he is working on this issue. I appreciate that some of the data I asked for is not collected. Nevertheless, the fact remains that almost 700 IPP prisoners who have never been released from prison have been locked up for more than a decade longer than their original sentence indicated. For most of them, this is because their mental health is in such a terrible state. Does the Minister accept that, in many of these cases, it was the IPP sentence itself that broke their mental health, trapping them in a self-perpetuating nightmare? Does he agree that resentencing these prisoners with appropriate safeguards and help is the only way to rid this country of this terrible stain on our justice system?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and the interest she has in this important area. I assure her and all noble Lords that I am not giving up on anyone. So far as mental health of IPP prisoners and all prisoners goes, the Chief Medical Officer has agreed to include consideration of the IPP sentence in his independent review of offender health this year, which I am really pleased about. On resentencing, public safety has to come first. The Parole Board is expert in deciding who is safe to be released and who is not. That is why the IPP action plan is absolutely vital, and we need to make sure we keep making good progression on it.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, like many others, including the previous speakers, I believe that resentencing is the only way to wipe the IPP stain off our justice system for good. But the Government, as has just been mentioned, are worried about the overruling of the Parole Board. Does the Minister agree that initially limiting resentencing to those already living on licence in the community fully addresses this objection, as the Parole Board has already decided that they are safe for release?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Those in the community are already benefiting from the significant changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which provides an avenue for an earlier end to the sentence after a successful period in the community. Resentencing those living in the community would halt the risk management and support provided to these individuals, some of whom will be at the critical moment of being recently released from custody. Although this is not a good example of someone who has been released, at every prison I go to I always ask to meet an IPP prisoner and sit in their cell or an office and talk to them and find out their situation. Recently, I met an IPP prisoner who is 11 years over tariff. He spent eight years at Rampton Hospital, and he has not engaged at all in his sentence. The action plan is not working for him. That is why it is really important that we give people hope, and for me the action plan is the way to do that.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, building on the previous question, there are many IPP prisoners who have been considered safe to be released by the Parole Board and have been released but have then been recalled to prison for reasons other than a further offence. Are the Government considering whether different considerations come into play for released and then recalled IPP prisoners—they were previously considered safe to be released—in terms of risk assessment and the possibility of future release?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which I have mentioned, introduced a new power to enable the Secretary of State to release recalled IPP and DPP prisoners using a risk-assessed recall review where safe to do so, without the offender requiring a release decision from the Parole Board. We now consider every recalled IPP and DPP offender for RARR, as it is called. This has already been used to enable swifter release and, in some cases, we have seen recalled IPP prisoners released several months ahead of their parole hearing. The noble Lord will know that not everyone who is recalled to prison is an IPP prisoner, but 30% of IPP recalls are because of a further charge for an alleged offence.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Government decline to do anything radical to end the Orwellian system of IPP sentences because they are concerned about public protection. Obviously, we all are, but there is no absolute guarantee that non-IPP prisoners will never reoffend. Why, then, do the Government pursue this unrealistic goal for IPP prisoners, thereby trapping them in a limbo that is rightly described—not only by my noble friend but across the political spectrum—as a terrible stain on our criminal justice system?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that it is a terrible stain on our justice system. In the job that I am doing, it is my job to make sure that as many IPP-sentenced prisoners engage with the action plan, get released, stay out and not come back. In 2024, the number of IPP unreleased fell by 182, and recalls fell by 83, but noble Lords will, I am sure, be aware that we are dealing with a number of issues in our prisons at the moment to do with a lack of capacity. We are battling to make sure that we get prisoners in the right prison to engage with the action plan, and hopefully they will get out and stay out.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, taking into account what has been said already, I welcome the enactment of the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act, passed by the last Government, allowing termination of licence conditions for IPP prisoners. However, there are huge legal complexities involved, so I wonder what steps the Government are taking to ensure that those eligible to terminate their licence conditions actually understand their rights and are able to exercise them.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for her question, and I agree with her. I have met IPP prisoners, both in prison and in the community, who are not fully aware of the situation they are in and what they need to do from here, so she raises a good challenge to me and my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, which I will take away and reflect on and get back to her.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, given that so many of those prisoners serving this sentence who have never been released are suffering from chronic mental illness, is it not time for them to be considered for transfer and treatment in a mental health setting and not in prison anymore? I mean that systematically, and not simply ad hoc, as when individuals are transferred, as I know some are, to a mental prison. In that connection, what consideration have the Government given to the proposal from the Royal College of Psychiatrists for the development of a regime parallel to Section 117 of the Mental Health Act to offer support to these people if they do achieve release through that route?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

There are 241 IPP prisoners in secure mental health settings as of the last figures published. It is those who are of real concern to me, because they are so far away from being safe to be released. We need to make sure that we support them—as in the example I gave earlier of the prisoner whom I met recently—in their journey. The work that the Government are doing on the Mental Health Act, with the provisions being put in place, will, hopefully, contribute to a more successful outcome.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, following on from the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for more detailed data, will the Government make public detailed data of the different gradations of risk presented by the various cohorts of the IPP prisoner population, assuming that they are not treated as an undifferentiated blob? Then, could the Government apply the same risk-assessment criteria used for early release decisions to the least risky IPP prisoners and release them now—hardly early—because to exclude IPP prisoners from emergency measures to ease overcrowding seems irrational and even cruel?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that I raised this when we had the Peers round table a few months ago—I am hoping to have another one in May—when we talked about the RAG rating of IPP prisoners. At the time, we just RAG rated those in prison, and I am pleased that everybody in the community is now also RAG rated, which will help. I am hopeful that noble Lords will suggest to me what they would like on the agenda for our round table, which I hope will be in May. Maybe we can discuss the important questions around data then.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State for Justice appears to have implied, perhaps somewhat implausibly, that she and her department were not aware that the new Sentencing Council guidelines would introduce a two-tier justice system until their final publication two weeks ago. She in fact has representatives on the Sentencing Council. To be fair, the Secretary of State moved rapidly to address the grave problem that this presented, but simply encountered a more fundamental problem stemming from the way in which the previous Labour Government established the Sentencing Council. It is not directly answerable to any Minister. We are now told that the Secretary of State and the council are “talking”. However, discussing the height of the drop as you approach the precipice is no substitute for a plan of action. What is the plan and, if these disastrous guidelines come into force on 1 April as intended, who will resign? Will it be the Secretary of State for Justice or the chair of the Sentencing Council?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

The Sentencing Council is independent of Parliament and government. The council decides on its own priorities and workplan for producing guidelines. The Lord Chancellor was clear about her discontent with the guidance when it was published on 5 March, which was the first time that she and other Ministers had heard about it. It is her view, and mine, that there should not be differential treatment before the law. The Lord Chancellor met with the chair of the Sentencing Council last Thursday and had a constructive discussion. The Lord Chancellor will be setting out her position in writing to the Sentencing Council and it has agreed to reply before 1 April. We will not get ahead of ourselves beyond that.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the Lord Chancellor was reportedly incandescent that the new guideline appeared to suggest that lighter sentences should be imposed on members of ethnic minorities. I take a different view from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, but I find the Lord Chancellor’s position baffling. As the chair of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice William Davis, explained in his letter to her, the imposition guideline is absolutely not suggesting that lighter sentences should be imposed on ethnic minority offenders. Rather, it is concerned with setting out when pre-sentence reports are particularly important.

As the Minister is well aware, there is strong evidence—often discussed in this House—that offenders from ethnic minorities are more likely than their white counterparts to receive immediate custodial sentences, and particular care is needed to change that. We all agree on equality before the law and the guideline is intended not to encourage unfair sentencing but to prevent it. So, on reflection, do the Government now agree that, in view of their vulnerability to unfair sentencing, the guideline is right to highlight the need for pre-sentence reports for ethnic minority offenders?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The issue of tackling disproportionate outcomes in the criminal justice system is a matter of policy and should be addressed by Government Ministers and not the Sentencing Council. It is my view and that of the Lord Chancellor that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. It is worth noting that the party opposite was not only consulted but welcomed these guidelines when it was in office. The former Minister for Sentencing wrote a letter to the Council setting this out on 19 February 2024 in which he stated:

“In particular, we welcome the clarification provided by the council regarding … fuller guidance around the circumstances in which courts should request a pre-sentence report”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in general, a community sentence should be imposed rather than a custodial one? In that context, would he agree that, in general, and not confined to the cohorts referred to in the guidelines, there should be a pre-sentence report to assist the court in determining whether a defendant is likely to be compliant with a community sentence and also to benefit from one?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Our independent judiciary is best placed to decide whether a community or a custodial sentence is required. From my experience, pre-sentence reports can be very useful in supporting the judiciary in their decision-making. They are even more helpful when the pre-sentence report is written by someone who knows the offender well and has a lot of training and background information on that person.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, contrary to the confected outrage from across the House, sentencing is not a matter for politicians and should be independent of government? Does he also agree that it would be a jolly good thing if all offenders, whoever they are, had the benefit of a pre-sentence report?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. It is up to the independent judiciary to decide whether to request a pre-sentence report. What we do know is that in a number of cases they are very appropriate. We also know that our judiciary—in which many noble, and noble and learned, Lords in this House have taken an important role—is respected around the world. We need to ensure that that is maintained.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why judges requesting a pre-sentence report because they might not fully understand the background of those from different ethnic or social groups and might want to fill any gaps in their knowledge amounts to two-tier justice?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The independence of the judiciary and the fact that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law means that pre-sentence reports are determined by the judiciary, and it should stay that way.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, are the Minister and the Lord Chancellor having discussions on a more sensible subject, on which I know he has some views: reducing the amazingly high level of incarceration in this country, which is the major cause of the state of our prisons? The average sentence for many offences has pretty well doubled since I was Home Secretary and has increased very substantially since I was Justice Secretary more recently. There is no evidence that incarceration levels have any effect on the level of offending. As the Sentencing Council in the end has the last word on the guidance to our independent judiciary, will this subject be taken up so that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister can share their views with the Sentencing Council and see whether it will help in the efforts to get down to more sensible levels of incarceration for the most serious offences?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and for his generosity and kindness to me many years ago in helping me get going when I first started recruiting people from prison. When we had those conversations many years ago, the prison population was much lower than it is today. That is why we have established the review on sentencing being carried out by David Gauke. We await his report, which will be published in the spring.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, in my relative youth I used to chair the Sentencing Guidelines Council, the predecessor of the Sentencing Council. From the Library this morning I obtained a publication that I believe emanates from the Sentencing Council, which includes the guidelines. There then follows the comment:

“Courts should refer to the Equal Treatment Bench Book for more guidance on how to ensure fair treatment and avoid disparity of outcomes for different groups”.


Does the Minister consider that valuable guidance?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Equal Treatment Bench Book was written by judges, for judges. I am very clear that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, confident as I am that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has read the guidelines, I am sure he will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, as I do, that nowhere do they require judges to hand down lighter sentences to ethnic minorities or any category of offender. They simply recommend that pre-sentence reports be sought for more categories of offender, so that sentences can better take into account any and all relevant factors. Does my noble friend agree that having pre-sentence reports in greater numbers and in more cases would be a welcome step in helping sentencers arrive at fair, appropriate, transparent and effective sentences for all offenders?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. It is clear that pre-sentence reports can be very useful. Our focus needs to be on having good pre-sentence reports and, when people leave prison and custody, making sure that they have a one-way ticket, not a return, because we do not want them to reoffend.

Prenuptial Agreements

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this important and timely debate about a topic that has a real impact on people’s lives. I also thank the noble Baroness for taking the time to talk to me last week, and I thank noble Lords for the important issues they have raised today and for their kindness to me.

I am participating in this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. I must therefore declare at the outset that I am not an expert on these matters, save that my wife and I celebrated our 28th wedding anniversary last week.

As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham set out so clearly in their remarks, marriage is a hugely important institution and the foundation of many happy relationships. That said, marriages and civil partnerships can of course break down. I wish to recognise, as many do, that divorce can be one of the most stressful and difficult times in people’s lives.

I will start with some context. As your Lordships will know, it is almost three years since our divorce law underwent its most significant change in half a century. The introduction of no-fault divorce now allows couples to end their marriage or civil partnership without having to blame each other. No-fault divorce has removed the legal requirement for conflict. As Juliet Harvey, then national chair of Resolution, said, one year after no-fault divorce was introduced:

“This historic change marked the end of the blame game for divorcing couples”.


It is perhaps fitting that the Bill introducing these measures passed with cross-party support both here and in the other place, gaining Royal Assent on 25 June 2020. At this point I must reference the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who played a crucial role in taking the Bill through this House. From speaking with officials in my department, I know how much they enjoyed working with him on this legislation.

I know that the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, take the view that no-fault divorce is just one part of the divorce reform story and remain concerned about the law that relates to a divorcing couple’s finances. This leads me to the specifics of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, which asks the House to take note of the law relating to prenups. I am aware that many of your Lordships will know the legal background. However, for the benefit of those who may be less familiar, including myself a week ago, I will give an overview of how the law in this area has developed.

In the 19th century, the courts concluded that agreements relating to a couple’s future hypothetical separation were invalid. This was because at the time, it was a public policy concern that these sorts of agreements might encourage separation or divorce. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, mentioned, in the landmark 2010 case of Radmacher v Granatino, the Supreme Court decided that a couple should be held to their prenup and post-nup agreement, if it is freely entered into, with a full appreciation of the circumstances, unless it would be unfair to do so. The current law continues as set out in the Radmacher case.

Central to developing law in this area, the courts have considered how to protect the finances of those who are vulnerable, including children, and how to make sure that vulnerable individuals are not coerced into signing prenups.

Your Lordships will of course be aware that the previous Government asked the Law Commission to conduct a review of the law on prenup and post-nup agreements. Its report was published in 2014 and recommended the introduction of “qualifying nuptial agreements”. These agreements would be enforced by the courts in specific circumstances. However, couples would not be able to use them to prevent each other providing for each other’s financial needs, including those of their children.

We have come back into government just over 10 years after the Law Commission’s report on this subject was published. The report regrettably never received a full response from the previous Government. I know this has been a source of frustration to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord St John and Lord Faulks, and I can assure your Lordships that this Government are looking into the issue with utmost care.

It would be remiss of me not to mention at this stage another report that the previous Government did not respond to, which was the Law Commission’s 2022 report on wedding reform. Again, I assure noble Lords that this Government are looking into this issue, including in relation to humanist weddings, and will provide an update in the coming months.

Since 2014, the Law Commission has however done further work on the law relating to financial settlements following divorce. In December last year, it published an important scoping paper, which outlined its assessment that there are problems with the current law, and possible ways the law could be fundamentally reformed. The Law Commission further outlined how changing the law on prenups and post-nups could form part of wider financial remedies reform. I know that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has been reviewing the recent report and will be setting out next steps in due course.

I also wish to assure your Lordships that the Government have an ambitious reform agenda for unmarried couples. This includes delivering our manifesto commitment to strengthen rights and protections for cohabitants. We are working on delivering this manifesto commitment, and plan to launch a consultation later in the year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, will see that cohabitation reform will address some of the issues raised in respect of religious-only marriage. I am afraid that, on the subject of pets in the family, it is not my pet subject.

The noble Lord, Lord St John, was right to express the importance of mediation, and may be pleased to hear that we have also committed to funding the mediation voucher scheme until at least March 2026. This scheme has helped over 37,000 families to date. Mediation helps couples take a less adversarial approach to making agreements following separation.

I have heard the calls in this debate, including from the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that prenups be dealt with separately from wider reform and that we legislate for them now. The Law Commission does not see prenups as a discrete issue, but, as I have heard today, some noble Lords disagree. The Government will take all these views in the round before setting out their position.

It may be helpful if I set out for your Lordships what the Law Commission says in its 2024 report. It says that any reform on the basis of its 2014 prenup and post-nup proposals would depend on the type of wider financial reforms that could be put in place. The Law Commission takes this view for a couple of reasons. First, it is of the view that it would be unnecessarily complicated to enact its 2014 proposals now, if future reforms would apply different rules for prenups and post-nups that would come into being at a later date. This would result in different law applying to different agreements, depending on the timing of those agreements being put in place.

Secondly, the 2014 proposals for prenups and post-nups were based on the central role of financial needs in the current law. The Law Commission said that any legislation is likely to need to be unpicked if there is future wider reform of financial remedies. I absolutely assure your Lordships that the Government are considering the Law Commission’s 2024 report and the issue of prenups in this context.

This debate is invaluable and timely. I know that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and his team of officials will take on board the range of perspectives heard today in the Chamber when considering next steps. In fact, I am looking forward to meeting him on Monday, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I will take his comments back to the department, and maybe to the colleagues he knew very well when he was there.

I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss for her contribution to this debate. Given her lifetime of service to family justice, including as President of the Family Division, it is important to have her careful and considered input on this topic today. I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for highlighting the need for fairness and transparency for prenups. The Law Commission’s 2014 report recommended that a couple must have received important information about each other’s finances when making a prenup. We will certainly be looking into this recommendation in depth.

The Law Commission’s 2014 report addressed the issue of the family court having the discretion to intervene if there has been a major change in circumstances, by recommending that a couple would not be able to contract out of providing for each other’s needs on divorce. This is a very important issue, one that I assure noble Lords that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby will think very carefully about.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for raising important questions about the formation of prenups. In particular, there is the question that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, also raised about fairness for a spouse who may have signed a prenup without anticipating what the future might hold. No young couple getting married can precisely predict the future. They may win the lottery, or their health may deteriorate to a point where they can no longer work. No one can be certain about how life will pan out.

The Law Commission’s 2014 report considered this issue and recommended qualifying nuptial agreements. These types of prenups would not allow a couple to contract out of meeting each other’s financial needs on divorce. The Law Commission recommended this type of prenup to ensure that needs that have arisen because of unforeseen circumstances are not ignored by the court just because there is a prenup in place.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is aware, the definition of “needs” in financial cases on divorce has been the subject of much case law. As I previously stated, the Law Commission does not see prenups as a discrete issue. However, the Government will take on board all the views your Lordships have raised today in considering next steps.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his contribution to this debate. I know how important these issues are to him and acknowledge his continued efforts to make sure that my department works across government to ensure the best outcomes for families who are separating.

As I have already said, and as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, marriage is very important in our society and is the foundation of many successful relationships. I listened with interest to the noble Lord’s perspective that prenups would boost the marriage institution, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby will be interested in this point too. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, on her question about appeals.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the right reverend Prelate for raising the important issue of the impacts of prenups on women. This is an important policy question. I am aware that the Law Commission considered this specific point in its 2014 report and made recommendations in relation to protecting spouses’ financial needs when they divorce. The safeguard recommended was that parties cannot contract out of meeting each other’s needs when they divorce.

I further thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his suggestion that the prevention of parental breakdown should form part of the Government’s opportunity mission. The Government already do much to support separating couples. The Department for Work and Pensions is delivering the Reducing Parental Conflict programme to reduce parental conflict and improve children’s outcomes. Through this programme, funding is made available to local authorities in England that work in partnership with a range of experts from relationship and family charities. The Government will now consider these recommendations in the context of the Law Commission’s 2024 financial remedies review.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, rightly expressed the need to reduce court delays. These delays have a significant impact on families, and we are committed to improving court timeliness. In 2014, the Law Commission said that its recommendations for prenups and post-nups may reduce the number of financial provision cases going before the courts in general. We will look at this further as part of our consideration of the Law Commission’s 2024 report.

Your Lordships will, I am sure, be pleased to know that the Government are already taking action to reduce delays in financial cases. We are supporting the Family Procedure Rule Committee to launch a new express pilot for financial cases in particular regions. This pilot will reduce the number of court hearings in lower-value financial cases from three to two. As part of this, dispute resolution would be the central focus of the first hearing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, will, I hope, be pleased to know that the Government continue to explore the use of technologies such as AI to improve the efficiency of courts and legal processes. The Ministry of Justice has established a new justice AI unit, led by the department’s first AI officer, to develop a comprehensive AI strategy for the department and its agencies. I confirm that our chief AI officer is a very popular person for everybody to meet.

The Law Commission says, in its 2024 report, that any reform on the basis of its 2014 prenup and post-nup proposals would depend on the types of wider financial reforms. The Law Commission does not, therefore, see prenups as a discrete issue. As I have heard today, some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston, disagree. The Government will take all these views in the round before setting out their position.

Today’s debate serves as a reminder that the law relating to prenups raises complex questions about the role that the courts and couples should take in the division of financial assets when divorcing. I understand the frustrations of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the previous Government had little enthusiasm to address prenups. I hope my repeated assurances in this debate that this Government are carefully considering the Law Commission’s December report have been helpful. As referenced earlier, I know that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has been reviewing the recent report and will be setting out our views in due course.

It has been extremely helpful to have this debate. In fact, it is the first time that I have heard the words “romance” and “love” in a debate. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time dealing with family justice matters and I will take what I have learned back to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on Monday. I hope he thinks I have done this topic justice—if noble Lords will excuse the pun.

I hope I have covered all the points raised today and that your Lordships will forgive me if I have not. If anything has been missed, I will write on those issues.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness for tabling this Motion. It is because this issue is so important, both for couples and their children, that the Government must take the time to get this right.

Prison Maintenance: Insourcing

Lord Timpson Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woodley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential merits of insourcing all prison maintenance.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that there are professional facility management services across our prison estate. A 2023 assessment conducted in partnership with the Cabinet Office determined that an insourced solution was not the preferred option for future prison maintenance services. Financial analysis determined that an outsourced option would be more cost-effective and would deliver the best value for money. The Government have therefore initiated a programme of work that will put in place new contracts for the provision of maintenance services for prisons, which are being competitively tendered. However, I am keeping this approach under constant review to ensure we get the best value for taxpayers’ money.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response, but it is undeniable that a decade of prison maintenance privatisation has been an absolute disaster. A disgraceful experiment has gone badly wrong and it blights the lives of everyone living and working in prisons. Does he agree that it is more than time to kick out the incompetent and greedy privateers and bring maintenance back in-house, which is far more cost-effective, and make much more use of works departments to give prisoners valuable extra skills through in-house maintenance and light repairs? I think this is called Q-Branch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. The prison estate suffered historic underinvestment by the previous Government over the last five years, which has led to a growing backlog of maintenance tasks and shocks to the estate from dilapidations. This has made the prison capacity crisis even more acute. As future prison maintenance contracts approach expiry, we will conduct detailed assessments to inform decisions about whether to continue to outsource services, alongside our usual performance management process. Stopping the contract process we inherited last year would have meant incurring additional costs and delivering less value for money. I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned Q-Branch, which is an innovative model that has empowered prisoners to build new skills and play a part in keeping their prisons running smoothly by undertaking tasks such as basic cell restoration, painting and decorating. It is currently active in 25 establishments and I am exploring how we can expand it further, alongside a similar operation called CRED, which helps build skills within prisons that can be used on release to get a job and not reoffend.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, among the myriad problems that the Minister faces is the fact that probably half of the security cameras around the perimeters of our prison estate are not working. Is that because they are too old or did the original contracts not include appropriate maintenance so that these cameras can be made to work for our security and that of prisoners?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct that the security of our prisons is of utmost importance and that we need all our security apparatus working correctly. We have had years of underinvestment in our prison estate. I am pleased that the Government are spending £520 million from this year until the end of 2026 on lots of projects, including improving our security.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister touched on this in his earlier comments. Does he agree that all prisoners should have an opportunity to work and earn while they are imprisoned?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

As someone who has employed many people in prison over many years, I am a big fan of enabling people to gain skills and confidence so that when they are released, they are less likely to come back. But it is all about risk, and not everybody in prison is ready to work within prison. The first workshop I opened was in HMP Liverpool, where we taught people to repair shoes and watches—due to risk assessments, we were not allowed to teach people to cut keys.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, but he must be aware, from reports in the press and his own extremely diligent visits to the prison estate, that something needs to be done about the poor quality of prisons. Will he therefore revisit the ideological decision by the previous Government not to allow the public sector to bid for maintenance contracts when the existing contracts run out at the end of this year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The key is to deliver value for money. If we had intervened in the process, it would have cost more. Ultimately, we are not opposed to considering a public sector option, and we will keep it under review. The question I keep asking myself and officials is whether we are getting value for money, and rehabilitative, safe and decent prisons?

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Rule 31 of the Prison Rules 1999 provided that all convicted prisoners should be required to do useful work for up to 10 hours a day, and indeed it is a disciplinary offence for a prisoner to refuse to work. Yet we are constantly being told of prisoners spending 20 hours a day idle in their cells or cellblocks. Is this a failure of management or a failure of resources? Will the Government undertake to review such initiatives as the New Futures Network, which was established to allow businesses to set up workspaces within prisons?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

It is vital that, when people are in prison, they are in purposeful activity and not in their cells, so we are putting a lot of effort into getting more people out of their cells for longer. We have still got an awful lot more to do. We have too many prisons for the workshop and educational spaces that we have. The New Futures Network, with which I have been involved for many years, has been very successful in increasing the amount of people who get jobs on release from prison. Three years ago, 14% of people who left prison had a job after six months, and it is now over 30%.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the work that he is doing. I hope he agrees with me that powerful voices, including the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Justice Committee in the other place, have highlighted how costs have soared while conditions have crumbled in prisons since privatisation. I hope that the Minister will take very seriously both the value for money question and the urgent need to consider insourcing—that is, having public maintenance of prisons.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

It is vital that the Government are led by the evidence and deliver value for money for the taxpayer. HMPPS has worked closely with the Cabinet Office to undertake a detailed assessment of prison maintenance requirements and how best to deliver them—I have even read all 175 pages of it. While they consider insourcing, the current evidence indicates that the private sector is best placed to provide a safe and decent estate, supported by effective maintenance that delivers value for money. I am continually monitoring performance and will keep my mind open to the best future options.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, last week, during a meeting with the National Preventive Mechanism, I was told that women in prison in Scotland with psychiatric conditions have to be transported 300 miles away. Can the Minister take an urgent look at that situation, but also tell us what is being done about self-harm and suicide in prisons?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I have a wide brief, but it does not include the prisons in Scotland. So far as female offenders are concerned, the issue is the same. This week, I was proud to chair the first Women’s Justice Board, and we will be tackling many of these issues. I have visited a number of women’s prisons over the years, and last week I visited Willowdene, which is a rehabilitative centre just outside Birmingham where women go as an alternative to custody. It is clear that many of those women are very ill and need help.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I have been in HM Prison Liverpool, in Walton—as a visitor—and seen first hand the work superb that the Minister refers to. His family deserve credit for all they have done. My experience of contracting, which is not as great as that of some in this House, is that the whole thing falls apart if the tender spec and terms of the contract are not clear. Any Government must be careful about picking the right price but the wrong provider—cheap is not always the best thing. Can the Minister give us an indication or a commitment that he will get the best person for the job, not the cheapest?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her kind comments; it is nice that we have known each other for many years and discussed this topic. I like to think that I bring to this job my skills as a business leader, where commercial decisions are not always about price but about service as well.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, this is another Tory shambles: the Tories were very good at locking up people but very bad at maintaining our prisons and the number of prison officers. We have got people locked up who should not be locked up. Will part of the Minister’s review look at whether alternative methods could be used where they are more suitable than prison?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. He will be pleased to know that we are at 99.5% of the required level of prison officers. That does not mean that they are all in the right place or experienced, but that is one of my jobs to do. It is clear that there are a number of individuals in the criminal justice system whose chances of reoffending are higher by going to prison than others. That is why the Women’s Justice Board is looking specifically at this very important area.